In fact, with the blackout on winback for a period, as he levels the playing field, and as he restores it to a common business practice approach in some ways, giving a capacity for a competitor to make that sort of offer—

Absolutely. The example I think I used the last time I was here was that if Air Canada knew who had a ticket on WestJet and called them and offered a special rate to cancel the reservation and fly on Air Canada, we'd say, hey, that's anti-competitive. That's what winbacks are. Because of the nature of the network, you know when they leave and who they are and you can target them individually.

I was going to say that the issue of winback, from my perspective, is not so much reverting back to new business practices but the fact that the objective of the policy is to deliver the benefits of competition to the wider audience. Winback delivers cost savings to a very select group of high-risk customers without running the risk of delivering all the benefits of competition to the market at large. We feel that is the issue with winback, that it will not deliver the benefits of competition as espoused in the policy direction.

If they take a more aggressive pricing strategy in more competitive markets, in some of the larger markets, is there the potential, from a profit perspective, for the incumbents of large telcos to actually raise prices in some of the less competitive markets? Is there that potential in some of the rural and smaller-town communities?

You already heard a sort of analog to that, on Monday, with Bell's rate increases. Bell has applied to increase rates by 80¢ a month for all its subscribers and is removing its service connection fee to those who are moving. It says it's doing that to meet competition. It describes that as revenue neutral. It's not lowering prices, it's raising prices across the gamut to deal with those instances where it feels it needs competitive advantage.